110 S.E. 356 (1922)
Defendant was indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling house of a property owner and stealing money belonging to a tenant, who occupied a room in the house. Defendant was convicted of burglary. She appealed.
- The court reversed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to show that there was a "breaking" within the meaning applied to the offense of burglary.
- A breaking, either actual or constructive, had to result in an entrance contrary to the will of the occupier of the house.
- However, the owner and the tenant both relayed that defendant was a close friend and that she had a key to the house.
- Defendant had the right to enter the premises that was as free as the tenant herself.
- The testimony from the owner and the tenant conclusively established that defendant did not break and enter the house.
- Thus, she could not be convicted of the alleged burglary.
The court reversed defendant's conviction and awarded a new trial.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law